Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AAR Customs - 2021 (8) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 316 - AAR - CustomsCorrectness of Advance Ruling application - Effective date of Advance Ruling application - original date of filing would still remain valid or the fresh date of application has to be considered - permissible to mention multiple Principal Commissioners/Commissioners in one application for advance ruling. Effective date of Advance Ruling application - original date of filing would still remain valid or the fresh date of application has to be considered - HELD THAT:- the present proceedings would be deemed to be a continuation of the earlier proceedings and not a fresh application, as was initially held. The significance of this line of reasoning would be that the applicant would remain eligible for receiving advance rulings in respect of those products which have been imported after filing the advance ruling application on 03.06.2019. the definition of ‘advance ruling’ as per clause (b) of the section 28E of the Act is that, it is a written decision on any of the questions referred to in section 28H raised by the applicant in his application in respect of any goods prior to its importation or exportation. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation of the definition would lead one to the conclusion that once application for advance ruling has been filed, and there is a delay in rendering a decision, as has happened in this very instance, imports made after filing the advance ruling application would not take away the right of the applicant to receive a ruling. Whether the 16 items grouped under 4 categories would merit classification under heading 23.09 of the tariff as animal feed supplements or they are required to be classified separately, e.g., vitamins under heading 29.36, carotenoids under 32.04, organic acids under 29.15 etc.? - HELD THAT:- The import of reading all the legal provisions cited above together leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the scheme of advance rulings in customs, as contained in the Chapter VB of the Act, envisages that an applicant would indicate only one port/point of entry for their proposed activity. The use of the definite article ‘the’ in all these legal provisions also point to the intention of the legislature to define a specific individual and not indulge in a generic description where a singular can be read as plural and vice versa. The statutory mandate to give a ruling within 3 months of filing an application would also be difficult to comply with if applicants cite multiple ports/points of import/export as corresponding with multiple principal commissioners/commissioners and conveying their comments to the applicant and take into account the rebuttals/rejoinders of the applicant would be time consuming and would make it difficult to render advance rulings within the time prescribed in the statute. There is no doubt, that the applicant needs to reapply separately in respect of each of these 16 products with sufficient details to justify compliance of the conditions laid down in the note to chapter 23 of the tariff in respect of the heading 23.09. The present application is defective and merits rejection - Application dismissed.
|